Court to quiz Coveney over contempt claims

The High Court is to be asked on Friday to make orders directing Agriculture Minister Simon Coveney to show good cause as to why he should not be jailed for contempt of court.

Mr Justice Sean Ryan yesterday was told that two Department of Agriculture employees believed the minister had breached an undertaking to the court not to fill two senior positions for which they had applied.

Technical agricultural officers Vincent Gormley and James Scott allege they were double-crossed in an appointments agreement. They say that when they took a legal challenge to court, the minister had breached the undertaking they claim he had given the judge.

Patrick O’Reilly, counsel for both men, was granted leave by Mr Justice Ryan to bring a motion on Friday seeking the attachment of the minister to the proceedings and his committal to prison. He said judicial review proceedings had already come before the court over the non-appointment of both his clients, who were fully qualified for redeployment as assistant inspectors in the department.

Mr O’Reilly said the High Court had been given an undertaking that nobody would be appointed to fill the positions until further order of the court. The minister has denied that any such undertakings were given.

Mr Gormley, of Brownsgrove, Tuam, Co Galway, and Mr Scott, of Glinsk, Ballymoe, Co Galway, claim that on Jul 30, the minister had given an undertaking to the court that he would not appoint people to the inspectors posts as advertised on Apr 12 or until their legal challenge had been determined.

At a hearing last week, Mr O’Reilly said papers had been prepared to facilitate an application for attachment and committal of the minister but asked for an adjournment until yesterday to allow him to consider a letter from the department and to obtain further information about positions that had already been filled. He said that despite the minister’s undertaking, it appeared the positions in question had been filled.

The new information also revealed there were four positions and three had already been signed off.

Mr O’Reilly said the minister was not prepared to give Mr Gormley and Mr Scott a further undertaking that the fourth position would not be filled before yesterday’s hearing.

The proceedings had stood adjourned until after a hearing by the Labour Relations Commission next month. The dispute has been subject to talks between the department and trade union, Impact.

Eugene Regan, counsel for the minister, had told the earlier hearing that he strongly objected to a suggestion of a breach of an undertaking. The undertaking, he said, had related to an external advertisement process while the issue before the court related to an internal advertisement process.

Mr Gormley and Mr Scott were employed by the department since 1998 and 2001 respectively but had been formally told in Jul 2011 that they were surplus to requirements. Their case is that under the Croke Park Agreement, redeployment took precedence over recruitment, transfers, and promotions unless special skills were required. They claim the Public Appointments Service should have been, but was not, notified that they were available for redeployment.

In late 2012, the department publicly advertised for assistant agricultural inspectors and had stipulated that candidates had to hold a first or second-class honours degree in agriculture science or equivalent qualification.

Both men claimed to have the necessary qualifications for the higher posts and say they should have been redeployed to them. They had applied for the positions in both external and internal competitions.

The judge directed that the application to attach and commit the minister should be served on the chief state solicitor’s office immediately by email.